Dr. ElBaradei's Nobel Peace Prize is politically motivated

It is true that before the US invasion of Iraq, Dr. ElBaradei was openly skeptical of the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had secretly reconstituted Iraq's nuclear program. Of course, no weapons of mass destruction, whether of the nuclear or the non-nuclear kind, have been found in Iraq. Dr. ElBaradei was also at odds with the Bush administration's claim that Iran was secretly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, insisting that all his agency could sign on to was that Iran had hidden for 17 years some of its nuclear programs from the agency's inspectors.

For the better part of last year, the Bush administration did try to block Dr. ElBaradei from winning a third term as the agency's chief, arguing that he was not strong enough to stand up to Iran as it covertly attempts to develop nuclear weapons. When the US realised that it had no support to remove Dr. ElBaradei, even from its western allies, the US relented and withdrew its objections. Dr. ElBaradei was appointed to a third term.

With a third term under his belt, Dr. ElBaradei apparently had a change of heart, and began doing the west's bidding. Hitherto, the IAEA referred a nation to the UN Security Council only after a unanimous decision of the member countries. Although the decision to send Iran to the UN for possible UN Security Council sanctions for non-compliance with some aspect of the non-proliferation treaty was not unanimous, last month Dr. ElBaradei's agency did recommend that Iran's case be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. This was the key US demand all along.

Whatever the original intent, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has only served the interests of the original five members of the nuclear club (US, Russia, UK, France, and China) very well, at the expense of the non-nuclear club countries. The nuclear powers feel free to, and have, invaded with impunity and occupied countries that do not possess the nuclear bomb. Evidence has been unearthed recently that President Richard Nixon was seriously considering the nuclear option against North Vietnam; only intense anti-war movement at home put a stop to such thinking. Everyone knows that Iraq would not have been invaded if it possessed the nuclear bomb. India had always taken the moral high ground, reminding the nuclear club members that as nations possessing the nuclear bomb and having dropped nuclear bombs on human beings, they had no moral right to preach to other nations that they could not be trusted with the nuclear bomb. After the US legitimised India as a nuclear power last July, however, it was deeply disappointing to see India, a member of IAEA, abandon its long-held principles and vote to refer its near neighbour Iran to the UN Security Council for possible economic sanctions. India may regret this decision.

It stretches the limits of credulity to make the case that Iran is a threat to the US. Iran has neither the capability nor the willingness, nor is it stupid enough, to take on the mighty US. The country that has the most stakes and does not want a nuclear Iran is the only country acknowledged to be a nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel wants to dominate the Middle East as the only nuclear power in the area. In one way or another, Israel has managed to neutralise all its major adversaries in the Middle East, such as, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. Only Iran remains standing. Willingly or unwillingly, America has become a front for Israel's determination to keep nuclear capability out of Iran's reach.

While India's status as a nuclear power is safe and has US blessing, Pakistan's is not and does not. The recent Pakistani diplomatic overtures to Israel have a lot to do with Pakistan's apprehension that as the only Muslim country to possess the nuclear bomb, it may be the target of a worldwide alliance of non-Muslim nations which have decided that to keep the Muslims nations subjugated, it is absolutely imperative that all of them be denied the nuclear bomb. The alliance is comfortable with the fact that the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, and the Jews all have the nuclear bomb and can be trusted with it; only the Muslims cannot be trusted. Pakistan realises that as the sole Muslim nuclear power, its nuclear status is under mortal threat. Iran knows that it is the prime target because of the alliance's determination that no more Muslim nations would be allowed to go nuclear.

This is the second time in two years that the Nobel Peace Prize has been targeted against the Iranian government. In 2003, Iranian dissident Shirin Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work opposing the Iranian government. That is why it is difficult to get excited about Dr. ElBaradei's Nobel Peace Prize. It is as much an award for him and the IAEA as it is against the Iranian government and the Muslims. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei and his agency are being rewarded for facilitating the possible UN economic sanctions against Iran and for enforcing nuclear non-proliferation selectively against Muslim nations.

Without being so devious, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee should have done the honourable thing and award the prize to a much more deserving Muhammad: the father of the world renowned micro-credit phenomenon, Bangladesh's Dr. Muhammad Yunus.